Duell

Is ‘local food’ Sustainable? Localism, social justice, equity and

sustainable food futures

Rebecca Duell

Abstract
Intensive agri-industrial food systems in facing old and new
sustainability challenges are now confronted with emergent
‘alternatives’, particularly local food systems, that pose
transformational pathways for strong sustainability. But important
questions are raised about the role local food will play in the creation
of sustainable food futures, including: Are local food systems
sustainable? Can they offer a socially just replacement to agri-
industrial systems, or will they simply replicate the problems of the
past or create new ones? These questions, in turn, are underpinned by
the fundamental question: What exactly does ‘sustainability’ mean in
the context of food futures?

Introduction
In a recent report for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN), Adams and Jeanrenaud (2008: 3) ask the following question, “How do
we devise strategies for society that will allow a peaceful, equitable, fulfilled
human future: a humane future for a diverse earth?” Present day sustainability is
acutely concerned with answering this question. Peace, equity and diversity are
values increasingly incorporated into discourses of sustainability that have, in
past mainstream practice at least, primarily been concerned with economic or
ecological outcomes (Redclift, 2005; Boström, 2012). These values highlight a
widespread and growing recognition that socially focussed strategies are
required to address “society-oriented definitions” of sustainability challenges,
which involve people as much as nonhuman nature (Becker et al., 1999: 4).
Thus, sustainability is not only about resolving ecological or economic
imperatives. Sustainability also involves the analysis of socially-shaped
processes and relationships within and between societies, which are implicated

123
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

in the creation of both social and ecological injustice. As Becker et al., (1999)
note in their seminal book on the study of sustainability within the social
sciences, “sustainability turns out to be closely linked to supposedly ‘internal’
problems of social structure, such as social justice, gender equality, and political
participation.” This article explores the implications of taking a socially
focussed perspective on sustainability to the study of local food systems.
As both Adams and Jeanrenaud (2008) and Becker et al. (1999) show, a
socially focussed perspective on sustainability is informed by the key principles
of social justice and equity. Fundamental to social justice are notions of
freedom and rights, which have implications for people’s safe and fair
representation and participation in civic and social life, for example. In a
sustainability context, equity refers to both intragenerational equity (between
people now) and intergenerational equity (between present and future
generations). Equity is primarily concerned with matters of distribution,
implicated in the widening gap between rich and poor between and within many
countries, and increasingly geographically stratified ecological degradation
(Gibson et al., 2005). Social justice and equity are crucial to long-term
sustainability imperatives because they expose underlying social and economic
conditions that lead to unsustainable states, for example, they link excessive
consumption in developed nations with ecological degradation in developing
countries (Rees & Westra, 2003). Importantly, they also challenge strategies for
sustainability that effectively maintain these conditions. Both principles share a
commitment to fair and equal access to decision-making processes. Achieving a
more sustainable society is, therefore, dependent on realising higher levels of
material and social equality, including economic and political equality
(Agyeman et al., 2003; Schlosberg, 2004). Without social justice and equity,
collaborative and inclusive dialogues that allow for equal partnerships and the
co-construction of alternate sustainability strategies will continue to be
marginalised in sustainability debates.
Throughout this article, the different aspects of a socially focussed
perspective for sustainability will be teased out, and these arguably oblique
ideas about social processes, relationships, equity and justice will be elaborated
on. Moreover, although the social and ecological dimensions of sustainability
are inextricably linked, this article focuses largely on the social dimension due
to its underrepresentation in sustainability theory and practice (Lehtonen, 2004;
Littig & Grieβler, 2005; Vallance et al., 2011).

124 
 Duell
 

The emergence of local food systems for sustainability

Local food systems are characterised by short food supply chains (FAAN,
2010). They include ‘community supported agriculture’ (CSA) initiatives,
farmers markets, community gardens, the ‘locavore’ or ‘100 mile diet’
movements, ‘permablitzing’, ‘guerrilla gardening’, and the territorial or regional
labelling of food products. Local food systems sit under the umbrella term of
alternative agri-food networks (AAFNs), which Whatmore and Thorne (1997:
289) define as:
Social and environmental configurations of agro-food production and
consumption that coexist with those of industrial food corporations
but which in some way counter, or resist, their institutional values or
practices.
These new configurations of production and consumption represent emergent
social phenomena, and as such, they have inspired a new field of study within
the social sciences and beyond. Specifically, local food systems have been
analysed from both “product in place” and “process in place” frameworks
(Maye et al., 2007: 2). Within wider trends of cultural and rural revival,
‘product in place’ frameworks focus primarily on the potential of (re)localised
food supply chains to protect and promote regional foods and traditional
methods of production. Alternatively, ‘process in place’ frameworks attempt to
“offer more distinctive oppositional socio-economic interrogations to improve
livelihoods and local wellbeing” (Maye, et al., 2007: 3). Process in place
research often explains producer and consumer participation in local food
systems as a rejection of, or resistance to, the agri-industrial food system and
the social, ecological and economic disadvantages this system manufactures.
As such, local food systems are increasingly championed as a key solution
to the unsustainability of industrialised, intensive and corporate systems of food
provisioning (Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Starr, 2010). A burgeoning literature
attests to escalating international concerns about agri-industrial food systems.
These systems have become so dysfunctional that several commentators have
declared them to be systems ‘in crisis’ (e.g. Lang, 2010; Magdoff & Tokar,
2010). Notable social and ecological symptoms and impacts of this food crisis
include loss of small farmer livelihoods (Altieri, 2009); depletion of key natural
resources, especially water and soil fertility and a dramatic increase in soil, air
and water pollution (Foley et al., 2011); diminishing biodiversity (Perfecto &
Vandermeer, 2008); and dangerously fluctuating, but continually increasing

125
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

food prices (Lagi et al., 2011). Subsequently, while levels of diet related
diseases rise in the global north, malnutrition and widespread hunger are at
epidemic levels in many regions of the global south (Gardner & Halweil, 2000;
De Schutter, 2009). Devising new strategies to feed the world’s growing
population in an equitable and humane way is clearly urgent.
Such contexts of sustainability and food crisis then beg the question
informing this article: What kind of pathway to a sustainable food future can
local food offer? This is of further import to ask in relation to long-term
sustainability imperatives due to the limited application of an explicit
sustainability lens to the analysis of local food systems. This is especially the
case in New Zealand and Australia. Deeper understanding of the transformative
potential of local food systems is required because, as Hinrichs (2010: 9)
argues:
Moving society towards more sustainable food systems requires
empirical study of current problems in the agriculture and food
system, as well as critical scrutiny of potential and proposed
improvements or solutions (emphasis added).
This statement highlights the importance of critically examining the role local
food could play when devising sustainability strategies or pathways, especially
in the face of wider popular discourses that position local food systems as a
panacea for all that is wrong with the agri-industrial food system (e.g. Pollan,
2006).
Of course, the above question, in turn, raises many more important
questions about sustainability and food. This article focuses on three central
ones that appear to underpin this area of research. What does ‘sustainable’
exactly mean? A straightforward and basic question at first glance, but the
concept of sustainability is widely interpreted. The interpretative quality of
sustainability has been described by some as a key weakness, though it is
claimed by others to be an important strength (Jacobs, 1999). Given this lack of
clarity, it is important to define the approach to sustainability that this article
takes. The second question asked is what is a sustainable food system? And
finally, what challenges are revealed when local food systems are analysed from
these sustainability perspectives? In responding to these questions this article
reviews two main literatures – on sustainability, and on alternative agri-food
networks (AAFNs).

126 
 Duell
 
What is sustainability?
Although sustainability is a concept that has been in popular use for over forty
years, it is largely accepted that sustainability has a range of meanings and is
not often clearly defined (Jacobs, 1999; Redclift, 2005). Some definitions
prioritise an ecological ethic, for example, whilst others emphasise principles of
economic growth. Differing definitions of sustainability highlight the concept as
socially and politically value-constructed, which is often underpinned by a
number of normative imperatives or principles (Littig & Grieβler, 2005). The
call for justice for future generations so as to not impinge on their opportunities
and capabilities to live sustainably is one such normative imperative. This
diversity in meaning and interpretation has led to the development of a range of
sustainability approaches or paradigms, including steady-state theory,
sustainable development and free-market environmentalism.
This plurality of definitions illustrates that sustainability is an open ended
concept. As Bossel (1998: 7) argues, there is no “unique state of sustainability”.
It is instead a perspective on the long term viability of the relationship between
humans and the nonhuman world that is inherently dynamic. Gibson et al.
(2005: 60) argue that this relationship is complex, as social and ecological
systems are linked in “open, dynamic and multi-scalar” ways. Consequently,
sustainability must be able to respond to, and incorporate, at times unanticipated
rapid ecological change and social transformation.
Sustainability is, therefore, as much about principles and processes, as it is
about achieving measurable predetermined goals. Principles may include
intragenerational equity, which incorporates material and political equality, or
the precautionary principal (Gibson, et al., 2005). Processes include economic
and social structures and relationships, including cultural value systems, which
establish and maintain inequitable levels and methods of production and
consumption, social hierarchies, standards of living, and divisions of labour, for
example (Becker, et al., 1999). They also include decision making processes,
which when transformed, Gibson et al. (2005: 61) argue can challenge
“conventional thinking and practice” on issues of “progress, development and
well-being.” Given the importance of principles and processes for sustainability
there can be no quick fix, nor singular lasting solution to sustainability
challenges that are both social and ecological in nature, such as the food crisis.
Sustainability can, therefore, be envisioned as both a means to an end, as well as
end in itself.

127
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

As a starting point for sustainability-as-process, Becker et al. (1999: 6)

contend sustainability should be defined negatively, that is to “identify states
and processes that are unsustainable”. Both unsustainable states and processes
are evident in agri-industrial systems of food provisioning. The identification of
this lack of sustainability has informed the creation of different pathways
leading away from agri-industrial food systems. The aim of these different, or
‘alternative’, pathways is to create new strategies for a sustainable food future.
As Becker et al. (1999: 6) advance, such pathways require “a conceptual shift
from categories of preservation to categories of change and transformation”.
Preservationist thinking seeks to maintain current social and economic
structures or ecological qualities, usually in isolation from each other.
Consequently, categories of preservation fail to acknowledge sustainability as
relational and conceptually dynamic.
Local food, agroecology, and consumer buying cooperatives are all
examples of claimed transformational pathways to a sustainable food future,
and can be considered ‘categories of transformation’. However, Becker et al.
(1999) are careful to point out that developing such pathways successfully will
require a certain amount of guidance to ensure pathways remain focused on
disrupting current structures and relationships that cause and maintain the status
quo, as well as creating the necessary conditions for social transformation.
Guidance can be established via the process of answering questions like what do
we want to sustain, why and for how long? And crucially when thinking about
issues of social justice and equity, for whom?
As the socio-ecological impacts of agri-industrial food systems grow worse
there is an increasing need to better identify and investigate current responses,
including approaches to sustainability that may themselves be acting as
‘categories of preservation’. It is through this identification and evaluation that
pathways and approaches to sustainability that provide processes of ‘change and
transformation’ can reveal themselves. A useful and increasingly popular way
to evaluate sustainability initiatives involves locating a social-ecological mix of
principles and processes, both theoretically and practically, along a continuum
of sustainability from ‘weak’ to ‘strong’. In keeping with the focus of the
article, only the social principles and processes are discussed.
Weak to strong sustainability: a framework for analysis
The classification of sustainability approaches as weak to strong originated in
the field of ecological economics (Hediger, 1999; Dovers, 2005). The original

128 
 Duell
 

weak-strong typology is based on the idea of ‘substitutability’, although it has

broadened in scope to better incorporate the social context in which substitution
takes place (Ang & Van Passel, 2012). Simply put, substitutability theorises the
ways in which one type of capital may be substituted for another. As Dovers
(2005: 53) explains:

Weak sustainability assumes that natural capital (resources, species,

assimilative capacity and so on) can generally be substituted by
human-made capital, thus sustaining human wellbeing over time. The
position of strong sustainability proposes that natural capital cannot
always or even mostly be substituted by human-made capital, with the
implication that limits to human use of resources and environmental
assets are real and close.

Dovers (2005) further argues that a variety of positions between either weak or
strong sustainability exist on a continuum, as concessions are made between the
two opposing poles.
Weak sustainability can be described as an economic growth-orientated,
technocratic and incremental approach to sustainability (Williams & Millington,
2004). It is underpinned by the dominant rationalities of capitalism and
industrialism, which include continued processes of ‘modernisation’ for both
the global North and South (Adams, 2009). Economic growth, free trade and
development are guiding principles (Bossel, 1998). Importantly, it is the
expansion of capitalism and industrialism that will lead to the accumulation of
wealth and scientific knowledge, which will supposedly enable social,
technological and ecological limitations of development to be overcome.
Weak sustainability thus places a high value or prominence on
technological progress/prowess to realise sustainability. The substitution of
natural capital with human-made capital relies on technological innovation and
expert problem solving approaches (Williams & Millington, 2004; Ang & Van
Passel, 2012). However, technological solutions allow little space for the
development of sustainability-as-process approaches as they are ends or
outcome driven. The rapid development and adoption of agro-biotechnology,
most recently represented by the ‘doubly green revolution’ of genetically
modified (GM) crops (Hindmarsh, 2004), is an example of how technological
solutions (although highly controversial) have been enthusiastically adopted
under the banner of sustainability (e.g. Monsanto Company, n.d). However,
aiming to increase the productive capacity of food systems does little to address

129
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

socio-economic structures and relationships implicated in the inequitable local

and global distribution of food, for example.
Returning to Becker et al.’s (1999) suggestion that sustainability should be
defined negatively, in response to unsustainable states and processes, the
underlying principles and processes informing transformational strong
sustainability approaches can also be defined in response to weak approaches to
sustainability. Lessons learnt from the failures of sustainable development, for
example, allow for the construction of much stronger ideas about what will be
involved journeying along pathways towards sustainability (the means), as well
as what the destination may look like (the end).
Strong sustainability is a transformational, process-orientated approach to
change that recognises ecological limits and the interconnection between these
limits and the social contexts or infrastructures of sustainability. Crucially,
because of the ecological destruction excessive economic growth brings and the
propensity for wealth to concentrate in the hands of a powerful few, strong
sustainability approaches reject the notion that exponential economic growth is
possible or desirable (Daly, 2008; Ang & Van Passel, 2012). Reducing demand
on the Earth’s limited natural resources is instead a central focus (e.g. Jackson,
2008). One key way of reducing demand is to cease defining wealth and
wellbeing only in terms of the acquisition of material goods.
In support of Becker et al.’s (1999) contention that sustainability needs to
involve a shift towards ‘categories of transformation’, strong approaches to
sustainability advocate fundamental rather than incremental change (Agyeman,
et al., 2003; Dobson, 2007; Ang & Van Passel, 2012). Transformation implies
long-term, systemic, and cross-cutting change to existing social, economic and
political decision-making processes mentioned above. These changes are
required to improve human equality and wellbeing, particularly of the poor and
marginalised. Specific processes and principles that enable social change
include bottom-up collective action, decentralisation, local innovation
responses, inclusive governance and collective ideas of wellbeing (Schlosberg,
2004; Connelly et al., 2011). Arguably, social change must occur in tandem
with appropriate technological change.
Issues of social justice and equity are highlighted as being intimately
bound up in the processes and structures that cause and maintain unsustainable
social-ecological systems, such as the agri-industrial food system (Agyeman,

130 
 Duell
 

2008; Altieri, 2009). It is in this context that Agyeman (2008: 752) makes the
important point that:

If sustainability is to become a process with the power to transform,

as opposed to its current environmental, stewardship or reform focus,
justice and equity issues need to be incorporated into its very core.

Key to the incorporation of social justice and equity into sustainability strategies
is understanding how class, gender, cultural and ethnic inequality, for example,
impacts on people’s use of and access to resources, wealth distribution and
democratic participation (Allen & Sachs, 1993; Schlosberg, 2004). Furthermore,
inequality and injustice stratify society, reduce social interaction and
cooperation, leading to a breakdown in shared senses of citizenship and
collective social and ecological responsibility (Bossel, 1998). Consequently,
achieving collaborative and coherent social and political action for
sustainability at both bottom-up and top-down levels can be a challenge, as
reaching consensus between groups with disparate needs and different levels of
social and political power is difficult. Often, the interests of more powerful
groups with vested interests can dominate discussions or negotiations, leading
to the marginalisation of less influential groups point of view, or proposed
sustainability strategies (e.g. Vanloqueren & Baret, 2009). Inequality then is an
important factor to address to enable the self-determination and participation of
all stakeholders in the co-construction of mutually beneficial and appropriate
sustainability strategies (see also Schlosberg, 2004). If the material and
discursive causes of inequality are not addressed, strategies for sustainability
risk perpetuating the status quo.

Sustainable food systems

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the open-ended and contested nature of
sustainability, there is no definitive and universally agreed upon definition for,
or understanding of, a sustainable food system. The disparity between
sustainability approaches seeking to overcome the food crisis is no more evident
than in proposed responses to the threat of climate change. For example, while
some authors stress the need for the production of drought-resistant crops via
biotechnological innovation (Ang & Van Passel, 2012), others continue to
champion the resiliency of small ‘peasant’ farms to climatic extremes (Altieri,
2009). By way of contrast, in Australia, where climate change is a particularly
salient topic, recent research has focussed on the inability of neoliberal

131
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

agricultural governance structures to address predicted climate change-induced

increases in food insecurity and ecological degradation (Lawrence et al., 2013).
The specifics of a sustainable food system are clearly up for debate. However, if
we accept the overall need for a strong sustainability approach, it is possible to
provide a general picture of the key principles and processes necessary for a
more effective and equitable sustainable food system.
For example, Allen et al. (1991) propose a definition for sustainable
agriculture that can be applied to a sustainable food system more widely. For
the authors, a sustainable food system is one that “equitably balances concerns
of environmental soundness, economic viability, and social justice among all
sectors of society” (Allen et al., 1991: 37). The authors argue sustainability
must not only extend to future generations, but also include consideration for
the welfare of current generations, as well as the welfare of nonhuman nature.
Reflecting strong sustainability theory, their definition explicitly includes social
justice for all people as a key principle for food system sustainability.
This definition is over twenty years old. However, even a brief review of
more recent literature illustrates its contemporary relevancy (e.g. Kloppenburg
et al., 2000; Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2008; Fernandez et al., 2013). As
Fernandez et al. (2013: 122) argue:

The growing links between the environment, health, food security,

poverty, and social justice reflect an emerging systemic understanding
of agriculture as a social and ecological activity in addition to an
economic one.

A sustainable food system is, therefore, not just about achieving economic
viability and on-farm sustainability, but is also underpinned by wider social and
ecological concerns, such as community food security, fair labour practices,
food safety, equitable access to food and the means to produce food, healthy
ecosystems and animal welfare.
Successfully addressing these concerns will rely on a sustainability-as-
process approach if the failures of more ends or outcome driven responses are to
be avoided. To recall, strong sustainability emphasises the need for systemic
social and economic change, rather than primarily technological innovation, to
address the inequality inherent in more corporate and industrial food systems.
As Gliessman (2011: 349) convincingly contends:

132 
 Duell
 
Current systems cannot be tweaked or “improved” without major re-
structuring of all aspects of the food system, from the field to the
table. This includes social, economic, and political structures. A
strong stand has to be taken if real change is going to happen.
Otherwise the resistance to change ingrained in conventional food
systems is too strong.

Fernandez, et al. (2013) argue a strong stand may be accomplished if various

agriculture and food movements working for social change collaborate, to
produce participatory, transdisciplinary and action-based research, for example.
They argue that agroecology, which applies ecological principles to agricultural
planning, could be strengthened by engaging with alternative agri-food
networks (AAFNs), such as localised urban food justice initiatives. Linking
local action to a larger political agenda is considered a key process for
engendering change. However, in both production and consumption contexts, it
is unclear to what extent emergent ‘alternatives’, such as localism initiatives,
can act as transformational pathways for strong sustainability.

Local food and sustainability

Local food systems offer dynamic, interactive and highly socially constructed
spaces for analysis. However, only a small amount of research has been
undertaken specifically on local food systems in Australasia, with farmers
markets and community gardens representing two primary empirical sites for
observation and data collection (Cameron, 2007; Chalmers et al., 2009; Andrée
et al., 2010; Evers & Hodgson, 2011; Turner, 2011). The literature, however,
reveals a significant gap in relation to understanding the transformational
potential of local food systems as sustainability strategies.
In terms of research to date, few explicit sustainability perspectives have
been applied to local food system analysis. When the sustainability of local food
systems is analysed, it generally reflects a widely acknowledged bias in the
international AAFN literature towards exploring the ecological or economic
dimensions of sustainability (Trauger, 2007). For example, Andrée’s (2009)
study in the State of Victoria, Australia, examined the ways local food hoped to
counter ecological degradation caused by more conventional food supply
chains. Other studies have focused on the potential of local food to contribute to
the revitalisation of the rural agri-food sector within Australia and New
Zealand’s specific political-economic climates (Guthrie et al., 2006; Cameron,
2007; Andrée et al., 2010). Although the more social characteristics of local

133
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

food is discussed, such as local food’s capacity to strengthen community-based

activities, the creation of new wealth is still positioned as the main basis for the
sustainability of local food systems. Small scale local food initiatives, for
example, are often considered to be ideal avenues for small businesses to test or
promote new products, which are often also sold in larger ‘conventional’ outlets
such as supermarkets (Guthrie et al., 2006). However, such activity does little to
expand local food initiatives beyond niche markets selling specialist or artisanal
products, which often have a premium price tag and claimed health or
‘environmentally friendly’ effects. Consequently, people on low incomes are
excluded from enjoying the benefits of these ‘sustainable’ products, and the
product has a relatively limited uptake and impact.
Broadening the scope of literature review to the related and overlapping
field of sustainable agriculture reveals a much wider array of studies that
specifically explore social aspects of sustainable food provisioning in
Australasia (Lockie et al., 2000; Campbell et al., 2012; Larder et al., 2012).
However, explicit engagement with questions of social justice and equity is
often missing here as well, particularly around matters of participation and
exclusion, and the negative implications this has for strong sustainability
approaches. Again, this reflects a wider historical trend in the international
literature that has either focussed on alternative production techniques as
technical solutions to ecological problems, or emphasised the potential
profitability of sustainable food production in filling niche markets (Trauger,
2007; De Lind, 2011). Of late, the social justice and equity deficit is starting to
be acknowledged and addressed, with research drawing on food justice or food
sovereignty perspectives (e.g. Mares & Peña, 2011; Sbicca, 2012).
Returning to specific literature on local food systems in New Zealand and
Australia, the prioritisation of economic and ecological sustainability outcomes
is problematic and needs to be addressed. Quite simply, attention needs to be
given to the social context within which these economic and ecological aspects
of sustainability are woven. One source of knowledge that can contribute to
analysing Australasia local food is the large body of scholarly work originating
in North America that presents a strong critique of local food systems, with
clear applicability to the discussion of sustainability presented thus far.
Specifically, local food systems have been critiqued on the basis that they often
fail to address social justice and equity deficits inherent in more
conventionalised food system relationships.

134 
 Duell
 

But, can this critique be applied to local food systems in an Australasian

context? There are several noteworthy differences between the North America
and Australasian agri-food sectors. New Zealand and Australia’s unique socio-
political and geographic contexts have influenced the productivist and export-
orientated models of agricultural development present in both countries (Burch
et al., 1999; Lawrence, et al., 2013). Both countries also represent two of the
most neoliberalised agricultural production systems globally. This situation
poses unique challenges to Australasian local food systems. For instance,
Australia’s export-orientated policy environment has resulted in little federal or
state support for producers selling to local markets (Andrée, et al., 2010).
Moreover, the North American agri-food sector is differentiated between
large scale, intensive, corporate agriculture on one hand, and small scale, local
farming and food systems on the other. Allen and Wilson (2008) argue
corporate agriculture has compounded pre-existing inequality, by heightening
food insecurity among, women, people of colour, and agricultural workers, for
example. Australasian agrifood systems have not suffered the same levels of
intensification and corporatisation. Lower instances of polarisation between
large and small scale agriculture have led to difficulty in clearly differentiating
between ‘conventional’ and ‘alternative’ producers and food systems, leaving
room for hybridity and diversity in food production practices and processes
(Rosin & Campbell, 2009; Andrée, et al., 2010).
Finally, not all issues of social justice widely cited in the North American
literature easily translate to the Australasian context. For example, whilst the
poor treatment of agricultural workers has featured in critiques of both
industrial agriculture and its alternatives in North America (e.g. Guthman,
2004), in New Zealand at least, this is not the case. The Recognised Seasonal
Employer (RSE) scheme, which provides jobs to short term agricultural workers
from Pacific island states such as Vanuatu, has avoided such problems by
regulating minimum pay levels and working conditions (Hammond & Connell,
2009). These issues of translatability between North America and Australasia
are important to note. Any analysis of local food in New Zealand and Australia
that draws on North American critiques should proceed mindfully.
The social justice and equity deficit of local food
Local food has many claimed ecological, economic and social benefits. On the
social side claims have been made that shorter supply chains facilitate greater
interaction between community members, producers and consumers, and link

135
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

rural communities with urban neighbourhoods (Feenstra, 1997). This is

beneficial because it leads to social cohesion between diverse populations,
increases social capital (Gasteyer et al., 2008), and develops cooperation and
respect between different rural and urban social groups, such as farmers and
conservationists respectively (Berry, 2002).
However, whilst local food systems claim to create many benefits, their
ability to provide solutions to the complex crisis facing the agri-industrial food
system is questioned. In undertaking a critical analysis of local food systems in
North American, several studies highlight a lack of social justice and equity
considerations in both the delivery of local food systems in practice and in
accounts of their emergent potential (e.g. Hinrichs, 2003; DuPuis & Goodman,
2005; Guthman, 2008; Allen, 2010; Slocum, 2010; Levkoe, 2011; Goodman et
al., 2012).
This critique includes several key theoretical contributions, in attempting
to define exactly what ‘social justice’ and ‘equity’ mean in the context of
sustainable local food systems (Hinrichs & Allen, 2008; DuPuis et al., 2011).
This contribution is particularly important, because it provides clarity to a
scholarly field which at times uncritically equates local food systems as more
just forms of food provisioning compared to agri-industrial systems (e.g.
Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Hassanein, 2003). This equation occurs because many
scholars and food activist writers, such as Hassanein (2003: 80), contend that
local food systems provide participatory and democratic spaces that challenge
“the commodification of food and transforms people from passive consumers
into active, educated citizens”. However, as DuPuis et al. (2011) argue, this
does not intrinsically mean that the space of the local food system is just,
especially when meanings of justice are rarely engaged with or referred to.
The central argument advanced by scholars who refute the claim that
local food systems are socially just is underpinned by an understanding of local
food systems as ‘place-based’ phenomena. Local food systems exist within
social environments that have specific socio-historical and cultural contexts.
Consequently, local food systems can never be neutral spaces, as they are places
imbued with meaning, which makes them a ‘place’ (Vanclay, 2008; Hindmarsh,
2012). As Allen (2010: 301) argues, inequitable “social relationships of power
and privilege [are] embedded within the place itself”. These social relationships
influence material and cultural practices on both small and large scales, such as
where, when, how and what food is produced and consumed, as well as for

136 
 Duell
 

whom. Inequitable social relationships can exist between rural-urban

communities (DuPuis et al., 2011), or indigenous-settler communities (Mares &
Peña, 2011). They may divide people along race (Guthman, 2008), class or even
gender lines (Allen & Sachs, 1993). Significantly, inequalities are not only
counted in terms of a difference in material resources, but also a difference in
status and access (Allen, 2010). It is these social relations that potentially
reproduce exclusionary and unjust practices within the places that local food
systems are embedded and the space of the local food system itself (DuPuis &
Goodman, 2005).
Entrenching principles of social justice and equity into local food practice
can go some way towards addressing the underlying causes of the limitations of
both local food systems, and industrial agriculture (Allen & Sachs, 1993). A
lack of attention to these principles can result in a myriad of difficulties, such as
the codification of local food systems as ‘white spaces’ (or Pākehā spaces
within a New Zealand context) (Guthman, 2008), which are dominated by a
select group of producers and consumers (DuPuis & Goodman, 2005; De Lind,
2011). Consequently, people are excluded, including consumers who are
marginalised in terms of ethnicity, age, physical ability, and wealth. Because of
this exclusion, lack of democratic and participatory control over central aspects
of the food system are reinforced, local or otherwise, such as natural resource
allocation, cultivation practices, choice of production inputs, and the use of
local and indigenous knowledges (Mares & Peña, 2011).
One example from the literature that illustrates how local food initiatives
can reproduce wider exclusionary practices and structural inequality is
Guthman’s (2008) research, which surveyed and interviewed managers of
farmers markets and community supported agriculture (CSA) initiatives in
California. Guthman demonstrates how the lack of participation by a variety of
ethnic groups in the farmers markets and CSA projects was explained away by
the managers as a lifestyle choice based on a lack of the ‘right’ values, or lack
of education about the benefits of eating local food. It was assumed by the
managers that when other people did not share the seemingly universal values,
experiences or ideals of the largely white participants, “that those for whom
they do not resonate must be educated to these ideals or forever marked as
different” (Guthman, 2008: 391). This inscription of difference is problematic
because it suggests local food participation is dependent on possessing the
‘right’ set of values, and reinforces existing social divides (e.g. class, ethnicity).

137
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

Whilst Guthman’s (2008) research did not specifically identify why there
was a lack of ethnic or cultural diversity amongst the local food initiative’s
participants, she points to a range of possible reasons. Localism initiatives often
express white/Pākehā cultural histories of agricultural development and,
therefore, exclude or deny the violent and exploitative colonial histories of
indigenous people or people of colour; they do not always offer culturally
appropriate food; or they employ the language or ideas of a privileged white,
educated, and/or middle to upper-class majority, which do not always reflect the
experiences or worldviews of other social groups (see also Valiente-
Neighbours, 2012).
Guthman’s (2008) critique of local food, which highlights differences in
social and cultural interpretations of ‘good’ or ‘sustainable’ food, as well as
differences in privilege, has particular salience in New Zealand and Australia’s
postcolonial contexts. Race relations and the politics of indigeneity play out
across postcolonial foodscapes in a multitude of complex ways, as Morris
(2010) demonstrates in her analysis on the lack of Māori restaurants. The same
assumption of cultural neutrality or universalism highlighted by Guthman
(2008) is present in New Zealand’s culinary foodscape. Culturally dominant,
Pākehā eaters define what is and is not ‘good’ food, presenting Pākehā ideas of
health and nutrition. Local food contexts are not immune to such dynamics of
cultural privilege.
Moreover, with regard to Māori and Pākehā constructions of social
sustainability, Scott, et al. (2000) argue that in the North Island “ethnicity cross-
cuts or aligns with class to create deep, if often unrecognised, difference.”
These differences create stratified social groups, who often have divergent
needs and aspirations. Scott, et al. (2000: 434) argue it is, therefore, essential to
“examine the multitude of competing voices in a particular locality if
‘sustainability’ is to be about anything other than maintaining the status quo and
entrenching current patterns of inequality.” Here social justice and equity have a
key role to play in reducing social inequality and increasing social interaction
and self-determination. Procedural social justice, with its focus on participation,
overcomes a lack of cultural recognition by enabling people to have a voice in
decision-making processes (Schlosberg, 2004). The equitable expression of
divergent needs and aspirations for a sustainable food system relies on
collaborative, inclusive and diverse dialogues. Such dialogues allow for a

138 
 Duell
 

plurality of worldviews and can lead to multiple co-constructed strong

sustainability strategies.

Conclusion
Clearly, the pathway to a strong sustainable and just food system cannot be
presented as a simple dichotomy between the current agri-industrial system and
one that is more localised. Indeed, North American critiques of local food
systems suggest they may be out of synch with an approach to strong
sustainability that emphasises social justice and equity as key principles for
transformational processes of social change. Instead, they may be acting as
weak ‘categories of preservation’ by explicitly or implicitly reinforcing social
and economic inequality. One of the reasons for this could be that local food
systems are often outcome biased. That is to say, (re)localising the food system
is often positioned as an end goal, with assumed inherent economic and
ecological benefits that will counteract the sustainability challenges agri-
industrial systems of food provisioning face (Born & Purcell, 2006). Contrary to
being envisaged as a means, method or strategy to achieve a desired end (a
sustainable and just food system), they are the end in themselves. ‘Local’,
therefore, becomes conflated with ‘sustainable’.
However, if sustainability is as much about principles and processes as it
is about achieving measurable goals, more consideration then needs to be given
to whether or not local food systems embody these principles and processes, or
help or hinder them. The framework for strong sustainability outlined earlier in
this article provides some guidance as to how the sustainability of local food
systems may be further explored, assessed and developed. For example, it is
important that a sustainable food system promotes inclusive governance and
decision-making processes to enable greater participation and representation of
diverse groups in the co-construction of sustainability strategies. Principles of
social justice and equity are key aspects of this as they can highlight barriers to
participation. Earlier in this article I posed the question, what challenges are
revealed when local food systems are analysed from a socially focussed
sustainability perspective? More research needs to be undertaken in New
Zealand and Australia to answer this question fully, including exploring if North
American critiques of local food are applicable in an Australasian context.
However, it appears localisation is still very much contestable as a
transformational pathway to a sustainable food future.
  

139
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

References
Adams, W.M. (2009) Green Development: Environment and sustainability in a developing
world (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Adams, W.M. & Jeanrenaud, S.J. (2008) Transition to Sustainability: Towards a Humane
and Diverse World. Gland: IUCN.
Agyeman, J. (2008) Toward a 'just' sustainability? Continuum 22(6): 751-756.
Agyeman, J.; Bullard, R.D. & Evans, B. (2003) Towards Just Sustainabilities: Perspectives
and Possibilities. In J. Agyeman, R.D. Bullard & B. Evans (Eds.), Just
Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World (pp 323-355). London: Earthscan.
Allen, P. (2010) Realising Justice in Local Food Systems. Cambridge Journal of Region,
Economy and Society 3: 295-308.
Allen, P. & Sachs, C. (1993) Sustainable Agriculture in the United States: Engagement,
Silences and Possibilities for Transformation. In P. Allen (Ed.), Food for the Future:
Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability (pp 139-167). New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Allen, P.; Van Dusen, D.; Lundy, J. & Gliessman. (1991) Integrating social, environmental,
and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture 6(1): 34-39.
Allen, P. & Wilson, A.B. (2008) Agrifood Inequalities: Globalization and localization.
Development, 51(4): 534-540.
Altieri, M. (2009) Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty. Monthly Review 61(3):
102-113.
Andrée, P. (2009) The neoliberalizing environmentalities of alternative agri-food networks in
Australia: A critical examination of challenges and possibilities. Paper presented at
the Canadian Political Science Association Conference.
Andrée, P.; Dibden, J.; Higgins, V. & Cocklin, C. (2010). Competitive Productivism and
Australia's Emerging 'Alternative' Agri-food Networks: producing for farmers
markets in Victoria and beyond. Australian Goegrapher 41(3): 307-322.
Ang, F. & Van Passel, S. (2012) Beyond the Environmentalist's Paradox and the Debate on
Weak versus Strong Sustainability. BioScience 62(3): 251-259.
Becker, E.; Jahn, T. & Immanuel, S. (1999) Exploring Uncommon Ground: Sustainability
and the Social Sciences In E. Becker & T. Jahn (Eds.), Sustainability and the Social
Sciences: A cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations
into theoretical reorientation (pp 1-22). London: Zed Books.
Berry, W. (2002) For the Love of the Land. Sierra 87(3): 50-55.
Bossel, H. (1998) Earth at a Crossroads: Paths to a Sustainable Future. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Boström, M. (2012) A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social
sustainability: introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice and
Policy 8(1): 3-14.
Burch, D.; Goss, J.; Lawrence, G. & Rickson, R.E. (1999) The Global Restructuring of Food
and Agriculture: Contingencies and Parallels in Australia and New Zealand. Rural
Sociology 64(2): 179-185.
Cameron, A. (2007). Farmers markets as small business incubators and safety nets: Evidence
from New Zealand International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research
Policy 13(6): 367-379.
Campbell, H.; Rosin, C.; Hunt, L. & Fairweather, J. (2012) The social practice of sustainable
agriculture under audit discipline: Initial insights from the ARGOS project in New
Zealand Journal of Rural Studies 28(1): 129-141.

140 
 Duell
 
Chalmers, L.; Joseph, A. & Smithers, J. (2009) Seeing Farmers Markets: Theoretical and
Media Perspectives on New Sites of Exchange in New Zealand. Geographical
Research 4(3): 320-330.
Connelly, S.; Markey, S. & Roseland, M. (2011) Bridging sustainability and the social
economy: Achieving community transformation through local food initiatives.
Critical Social Policy 31(2): 308-324.
Daly, H. (2008) A Steady State Economy. The Ecologist 38(3): 40-43.
De Lind, L. (2011) Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to
go? Or are we hitching our wagons to the wrong stars? Agriculture and Human
Values 28(2): 273-283.
De Schutter, O. (2009) Twenty-sixth McDougall Memorial Lecture. Paper presented at the
Thirty-sixth Session of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations,
Rome
Dobson, A. (2007) Green Political Thought (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Dovers, S. (2005) Environment and Sustainability Policy: Creation, Implementation,
Evaluation. Sydney: The Federation Press.
DuPuis, M. & Goodman, D. (2005) Should we go “home” to eat? Towards a reflexive
politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 359-371.
DuPuis, M.; Harrison, J.L. & Goodman, D. (2011) Just Food? In A. Alkon & J. Agyeman
(Eds.), Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class and Sustainability (pp 283-307).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Evers, A. & Hodgson, N.L. (2011) Food choices and local food access among Perth's
community gardeners. Local Environment 16(6): 585-602.
FAAN (2010) Local Food Systems in Europe: Case Studies from five countries and what they
imply for policy and practice. Graz: Inter-University Research Centre on Technology,
Work and Culture (IFZ).
Feenstra, G. (1997) Local food systems and sustainable communities American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture 12(1): 28-36.
Fernandez, M.; Goodall, K.; Olson, M. & Mendez, E. (2013) Agroecology and Alternative
Agrifood Movements in the United States: Towards a Sustainable Agrifood System.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 121005074109009.
Foley, J.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M. et al.
(2011) Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature 478(7369): 1-6.
Gardner, G. & Halweil, B. (2000) Overfed and Underfed: The Global Epidemic of
Malnutrition Washington, D.C: Worldwatch Institute.
Gasteyer, S.; Hultine, S.; Cooperband, L. & Curry, P. (2008). Produce Sections, Town
Squares, and Farm Stands: Comparing Local Food Systems in Community Context.
Southern Rural Sociology 23(1): 47-71.
Gibson, R.B.; Hassan, S.; Holtz, S.; Tansey, J. & Whitelaw, G. (2005) Sustainability
Assessment: Criteria, Process and Applications. London: Earthscan.
Gliessman, S. (2011) Agroecology and Food System Change. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 35(4): 347-349.
Goodman, D.; DuPuis, M. & Goodman, M. (2012) Alternative Food Networks: Knowledge,
practice and politics. London: Routledge
Guthman, J. (2004) Agrarian Dreams: the paradox of organic farming in California.
Berkley: University of California Press.
Guthman, J. (2008) "If They Only Knew": Color Blindness and Universalism in California
Alternative Food Institutions The Professional Geographer 60(3): 387-397.

141
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

Guthrie, J.; Guthrie, A.; Lawson, R. & Cameron, A. (2006) Farmers' markets: the small
business counter-revolution in food production and retailing. British Food Journal
108(7): 560-573.
Hammond, J. & Connell, J. (2009) The new blackbirds? Vanuatu guestworkers in New
Zealand. New Zealand Geographer, 65(3), 201-210.
Hassanein, N. (2003). Practicing Food Democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation
Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 77-86.
Hediger, W. (1999) Reconciling "weak" and "strong" sustainability. International Journal of
Social Economics 26(7/8/9): 1120-1143.
Hindmarsh, R. (2004) GM Policy Networks in Asia: The Discursive Politics of the 'Doubly
Green Revolution'. In N. Stehr (Ed.), Biotechnology: Between Commerce and Civil
Society (pp 321-348). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Hindmarsh, R. (2012) ‘Liberating’ social knowledges for water management, and more
broadly environmental management, through ‘place-change planning’. Local
Environment 17(10): 1121-1136.
Hinrichs, C. (2003) The Practice and Politics of Food System Localization. Journal of Rural
Studies 19: 33-45.
Hinrichs, C. (2010) Sustainable Food Systems: Challenges of Social Justice and a Call to
Sociologists. Sociological Viewpoints 26(2): 7-18.
Hinrichs, C. & Allen, P. (2008) Selective Patronage and Social Justice: Local Food
Consumer Campaigns in Historical Context. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
21(4): 329-352.
Jackson, T. (2008). Where is the “wellbeing dividend”? Nature, structure and consumption
inequalities. Local Environment, 13(8), 703-723.
Jacobs, M. (1999) Sustainable Developement as a Contested Concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.),
Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice (pp
21-47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kloppenburg, J., Hendrickson, J. & Stevenson, G. W. (1996). Coming into the Foodshed.
Agriculture and Human Values 13(3): 33-42.
Kloppenburg, J., Lezberg, S., De Master, K., Stevenson, G.W. & Hendricksen, J. (2000).
Tasting Food, Tasting Sustainability: Defining the Attributes of an Alternative Food
System with Competent, Ordinary People. Human Organization 59(2): 177-186.
Lagi, M.; Bar-Yam, Y.; Bertrand, K. & Bar-Yam, Y. (2011) The Food Crisis: a quantitative
model of food prices including speculators and ethanol conversion. Retrieved April
25, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodprices.html
Lang, T. (2010) Crisis? What Crisis? The Normality of the Current Food Crisis. Journal of
Agrarian Change 10(1): 87-97.
Larder, N.; Lyons, K. & Woolcock, G. (2012) Enacting food sovereignty: values and
meanings in the act of domestic food production in urban Australia. Local
Environment: 1-21.
Lawrence, G.; Richards, C. & Lyons, K. (2013) Food Security in Australia in an era of
neoliberalism, productivism and climate change. Journal of Rural Studies, 29: 30-39.
Lehtonen, M. (2004) The environmental-social interface of sustainable development:
capabilities, social capital, insitutions Ecological Economics 49(2): 199-214.
Levkoe, C. (2011) Towards a Transformative Food Politics. Local Environment Journal
16(7): 687-705.
Littig, B. & Grieβler, E. (2005) Social sustainability: a catchword between political
pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development
8(1/2): 65-79.

142 
 Duell
 
Lockie, S.; Lyons, K. & Lawrence, G. (2000) Constructing “green” foods: Corporate capital,
risk, and organic farming in Australia and New Zealand. Agriculture and Human
Values 17(4): 315-322.
Magdoff, F. & Tokar, B. (2010) Agriculture and Food in Crisis: An Overview In F. Magdoff
& B. Tokar (Eds.), Agriculture and Food In Crisis: Conflict, Resistance and Renewal
(pp 9-30). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Mares, T.M. & Peña, D.G. (2011) Environmental and Food Justice: Toward Local, Slow, and
Deep Food Systems In A. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating Food Justice:
Race, Class and Sustainability (pp 197-219). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Maye, D.; Holloway, L. & Kneafsey, M. (2007) Introducing Alternative Food Geographies.
In D. Maye, L. Holloway & M. Kneafsey (Eds.), Alternative Food Geograhies:
Representation and Practice (pp 1-17). Oxford: Elsevier.
Monsanto Company (n.d) Sustainable Agriculture: Producing More. Conserving More.
Improving Lives. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.monsanto.com/ourcommitments/pages/sustainable-agriculture.aspx
Morris, C. (2010) The Politics of Palatability: On the Absence of Māori Restaurants. Food,
Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 13(1): 5-
28.
Perfecto, I. & Vandermeer, J. (2008) Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: a
new conservation paradigm. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134: 173-
200.
Pollan, M. (2006) The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York:
The Penguin Press.
Redclift, M. (2005) Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age.
Sustainable Development 13(4): 212-227.
Rees, W. & Westra, L. (2003). When Consumption Does Violence: Can There be
Sustainability and Environmental Justice in a Reasource-limited World? In J.
Agyeman, R. D. Bullard & B. Evans (Eds.), Just Sustainabilities: Development in an
Unequal World (pp 99-124). London: Earthscan.
Rosin, C. & Campbell, H. (2009) Beyond bifurcation: Examining the conventions of organic
agriculture in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 25(1): 35-47.
Sbicca, J. (2012) Growing food justice by planting an anti-oppression foundation:
opportunities and obstacles for a budding social movement. Agriculture and Human
Values 29(4): 455-466.
Schlosberg, D. (2004) Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements and Political
Theories. Environmental Politics 13(3): 517-540.
Scott, K.; Park, J. & Cocklin, C. (2000) From 'sustainable rural communities' to 'social
sustainability': giving voice to diversity in Mangakahia Valley, New Zealand. Journal
of Rural Studies 16(4): 433-446.
Slocum, R. (2010) Race in the study of food. Progress in Human Geography 35(3): 303-327.
Starr, A. (2010). Local Food: A Social Movement? Cultural Studies – Critical
Methodologies, 10(6), 479-490.
Trauger, A. (2007) Connecting Social Justice to Sustainability: Discourse and Practice in
Sustainable Agriculture in Pennsylvania. In D. Maye, L. Holloway & M. Kneafsey
(Eds.), Alternative Food Geographies: Representation and Practice (pp 39-54).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Turner, B. (2011) Embodied connections: sustainability, food systems and community
gardens. Local Environment 16(6): 509-522.
Valiente-Neighbours, J.M. (2012) Mobility, embodiment, and scales: Filipino immigrant
perspectives on local food. Agriculture and Human Values 29(4): 531-541.

143
New Zealand Sociology Volume 28 Issue 4 2013

Vallance, S.; Perkins, H.C. & Dixon, J.E. (2011) What is social sustainability? A clarification
of concepts. Geoforum 42(3): 342-348.
Vanclay, F. (2008) Place matters. In F. Vanclay, M. Higgins & A. Blackshaw (Eds.), Making
Sense of Place: Exploring the Concepts and Expressions of Place Through Different
Senses and Lenses (pp 3-11). Canberra: National Museum of Australia Press.
Vanloqueren, G. & Baret, P.V. (2009) How agricultural research systems shape a
technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological
innovations Research Policy 38(6): 971-983.
Whatmore, S. & Thorne, L. (1997) Nourishing Networks: Alternative geographies of food. In
D. Goodman & M. Watts (Eds.), Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global
Restructuring (pp 287-304). London: Routledge.
Williams, C.C. & Millington, A.C. (2004). The diverse and contested meanings of
sustainable development. The Geographical Journal 170(2): 99-104.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Richard Hindmarsh and two anonymous referees for their
helpful comments on earlier drafts of the article.

Rebecca Duell is a PhD candidate in the School of Environment, Griffith

University, Brisbane, Australia. She is originally from New Zealand and has a
BA (Hons. 1st.) in sociology from the University of Canterbury.

144 
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.